MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W202762419 · doi:10.1177/0361198105193300104

The Executive Support System of Ontario, Canada

2005· article· en· W202762419 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph Guerre, W Robert, Alison Bradbury, Michael Goodale

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
FundersArnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation
KeywordsBlueprintBridge (graph theory)Asset managementAsset (computer security)Computer scienceChristian ministryWork (physics)Decision support systemProcess managementOperations researchSystems engineeringSystem integrationEngineering managementEngineeringBusinessOperating systemFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), Canada, is currently implementing an asset management business framework (AMBF). The AMBF provides the ministry with an ambitious blueprint for incorporating asset management concepts into its existing business processes. A key component in the AMBF is the ability to integrate results from the ministry's existing management systems. In support of the AMBF, MTO has developed a prototype executive support system (ESS). The ESS is a what-if analysis tool that predicts network performance over time using data from the ministry's pavement and bridge management systems. It enables decision makers to evaluate the relationship between performance and budget and to view results by region, corridor, or functional class. This paper presents the analytical approach used to develop the ESS and describes how it was implemented by MTO. The ESS uses a candidate-based approach to system integration, which enables the integration of any management system capable of generating work candidates and estimating their impact on a defined set of performance measures. The ESS brings together data from these systems and performs an additional level of cross-asset economic optimizations, taking into account user-defined operating assumptions. Although much work has recently been done on the integration of pavement and bridge systems, the objective of this paper is to present a practical example implemented by MTO.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207